#emission reduction grants

[artisticdivasworld]

How to Upgrade Your Truck Without Breaking the Bank: A Guide for the Individual Trucker

The new EPA regulations are probably the last thing you want to hear about right now. It feels like every time we turn around, there’s another rule or restriction. And honestly, it’s frustrating! But before you throw your hands up in anger, let’s talk about how these changes could actually work in your favor and, more importantly, what options are out there to help you upgrade your trucks without…

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #26

July 5-12 2024

The IRS announced it had managed to collect $1 billion in back taxes from high-wealth tax cheats. The program focused on persons with more than $1 million in yearly income who owned more than $250,000 in unpaid taxes. Thanks to money in Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act the IRS is able to undertake more enforcement against rich tax cheats after years of Republicans cutting the agency's budget, which they hope to do again if they win power again.

The Biden administration announced a $244 million dollar investment in the federal government’s registered apprenticeship program. This marks the largest investment in the program's history with grants going out to 52 programs in 32 states. The President is focused on getting well paying blue collar opportunities to people and more people are taking part in the apprenticeship program than ever before. Republican pledge to cut it, even as employers struggle to find qualified workers.

The Department of Transportation announced the largest single project in the department's history, $11 billion dollars in grants for the The Hudson River Tunnel. Part of the $66 billion the Biden Administration has invested in our rail system the tunnel, the most complex Infrastructure project in the nation would link New York and New Jersey by rail under the Hudson. Once finished it's believed it'll impact 20% of the American economy by improving and speeding connection throughout the Northeast.

The Department of Energy announced $1.7 billion to save auto worker's jobs and convert factories to electronic vehicles. The Biden administration will used the money to save or reopen factories in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Virginia and retool them to make electric cars. The project will save 15,000 skilled union worker jobs, and created 2,900 new high-quality jobs.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development reached a settlement with The Appraisal Foundation over racial discrimination. TAF is the organization responsible for setting standards and qualifications for real estate appraisers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics last year found that TAF was 94.7% White and 0.6% Black, making it the least racially diverse of the 800 occupations surveyed. Black and Latino home owners are far more likely to have their houses under valued than whites. Under the settlement with HUD TAF will have to take serious steps to increase diversity and remove structural barriers to diversity.

The Department of Justice disrupted an effort by the Russian government to influence public opinion through AI bots. The DoJ shut down nearly 1,000 twitter accounts that were linked to a Russian Bot farm. The bots used AI technology to not only generate tweets but also AI image faces for profile pictures. The effort seemed focused on boosting support for Russia's war against Ukraine and spread negative stories/impressions about Ukraine.

The Department of Transportation announces $1.5 billion to help local authorities buy made in America buses. 80% of the funding will go toward zero or low-emission technology, a part of the President's goal of reaching zero emissions by 2050. This is part of the $5 billion the DOT has spent over the last 3 years replacing aging buses with new cleaner technology.

President Biden with Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau and Finnish President Alexander Stubb signed a new agreement on the arctic. The new trilateral agreement between the 3 NATO partners, known as the ICE Pact, will boost production of ice breaking ships, the 3 plan to build as many as 90 between them in the coming years. The alliance hopes to be a counter weight to China's current dominance in the ice breaker market and help western allies respond to Russia's aggressive push into the arctic waters.

The Department of Transportation announced $1.1 billion for greater rail safety. The program seeks to, where ever possible, eliminate rail crossings, thus removing the dangers and inconvenience to communities divided by rail lines. It will also help update and improve safety measures at rail crossings.

The Department of the Interior announced $120 million to help tribal communities prepare for climate disasters. This funding is part of half a billion dollars the Biden administration has spent to help tribes build climate resilience, which itself is part of a $50 billion dollar effort to build climate resilience across the nation. This funding will help support drought measures, wildland fire mitigation, community-driven relocation, managed retreat, protect-in-place efforts, and ocean and coastal management.

The USDA announced $100 million in additional funds to help feed low income kids over the summer. Known as "SUN Bucks" or "Summer EBT" the new Biden program grants the families of kids who qualify for free meals at school $120 dollars pre-child for groceries. This comes on top of the traditional SUN Meals program which offers school meals to qualifying children over the summer, as well as the new under President Biden SUN Meals To-Go program which is now offering delivery of meals to low-income children in rural areas. This grant is meant to help local governments build up the Infrastructure to support and distribute SUN Bucks. If fully implemented SUN Bucks could help 30 million kids, but many Republican governors have refused the funding.

USAID announced its giving $100 million to the UN World Food Program to deliver urgently needed food assistance in Gaza. This will bring the total humanitarian aid given by the US to the Palestinian people since the war started in October 2023 to $774 million, the single largest donor nation. President Biden at his press conference last night said that Israel and Hamas have agreed in principle to a ceasefire deal that will end the war and release the hostages. US negotiators are working to close the final gaps between the two sides and end the war.

The Senate confirmed Nancy Maldonado to serve as a Judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Maldonado is the 202nd federal Judge appointed by President Biden to be confirmed. She will the first Latino judge to ever serve on the 7th Circuit which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Bonus: At the NATO summit in Washington DC President Biden joined 32 allies in the Ukraine compact. Allies from Japan to Iceland confirmed their support for Ukraine and deepening their commitments to building Ukraine's forces and keeping a free and Democratic Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. World leaders such as British Prime Minster Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, praised President Biden's experience and leadership during the NATO summit

[reasonsforhope]

"Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] definition-shifting court ruling means nearly 50 governments must now contend with a new era of climate litigation.

Governments be warned: You must protect your citizens from climate change — it’s their human right.

The prescient message was laced throughout a dense ruling Tuesday from Europe’s top human rights court. The court’s conclusion? Humans have a right to safety from climate catastrophes that is rooted in their right to life, privacy and family.

The definition-shifting decision from the European Court of Human Rights means nearly 50 governments representing almost 700 million people will now have to contend with a new era of litigation from climate-stricken communities alleging inaction. 

While the judgment itself doesn’t include any penalties — the case featured several women accusing Switzerland of failing to shield them from climate dangers — it does establish a potent precedent that people can use to sue governments in national courts.

The verdict will serve “as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures,” said Ruth Delbaere, a legal specialist at Avaaz, a U.S.-based nonprofit that promotes climate activism...

Courting the courts on climate

The European Court of Human Rights was established in the decade following World War II but has grown in importance over the last generation. As the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, an international human rights organization, the court’s rulings are binding on the council’s 46 members, spanning all of Europe and numerous countries on its borders.

As a result, Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] ruling will help elevate climate litigation from a country-by-country battle to one that stretches across continents.

Previously, climate activists had mostly found success in suing individual countries to force climate action. 

A 2019 Dutch Supreme Court verdict forced the Netherlands to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent, while in 2021 a French court ruled the government was responsible for environmental damage after it failed to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. That same year, Germany’s Constitutional Court issued a sweeping judgment that the country’s 2019 climate law was partly “unconstitutional” because it put too much of the emissions-cutting burden on future generations.

Even in the U.S., young environmental activists won a local case last year against state agencies after arguing that the continued use of fossil fuels violated their right to a "clean and healthful environment."

But 2024 is shaping up to be a turning point for climate litigation, redefining who has a right to sue over climate issues, what arguments they can use, and whom they can target. 

To start, experts overwhelmingly expect that Tuesday’s ruling will reverberate across future lawsuits — both in Europe and globally. The judgment even includes specifics about what steps governments must take to comply with their new climate-related human rights obligations. The list includes things like a concrete deadline to reach climate neutrality, a pathway to getting there, and evidence the country is actually on that path...

Concretely, the verdict could also affect the outcomes of six other high-profile climate lawsuits pending before the human rights court, including a Greenpeace-backed suit questioning whether Norway's decision to grant new oil and gas licenses complies with its carbon-cutting strategy.

An emerging legal strategy

In the coming months, other international bodies are also expected to issue their own rulings on the same thorny legal issues, which could further solidify the evolving trend. 

The International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights all have similar cases working through the system.

"All these cases together will clarify the legal obligations of states to protect rights in the context of climate change — and will set the stage for decades to come," said Chowdhury, from the environmental law center."

-via Politico, April 9, 2024

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The impoverished imagination of neoliberal climate “solutions

This morning (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

There is only one planet in the known universe capable of sustaining human life, and it is rapidly becoming uninhabitable by humans. Clearly, this warrants bold action – but which bold action should we take?

After half a century of denial and disinformation, the business lobby has seemingly found climate religion and has joined the choir, but they have their own unique hymn: this crisis is so dire, they say, that we don't have the luxury of choosing between different ways of addressing the emergency. We have to do "all of the above" – every possible solution must be tried.

In his new book Dark PR, Grant Ennis explains that this "all of the above" strategy doesn't represent a change of heart by big business. Rather, it's part of the denial playbook that's been used to sell tobacco-cancer doubt and climate disinformation:

https://darajapress.com/publication/dark-pr-how-corporate-disinformation-harms-our-health-and-the-environment

The point of "all of the above" isn't muscular, immediate action – rather, it's a delaying tactic that creates space for "solutions" that won't work, but will generate profits. Think of how the tobacco industry used "all of the above" to sell "light" cigarettes, snuff, snus, and vaping – and delay tobacco bans, sin taxes, and business-euthanizing litigation. Today, the same playbook is used to sell EVs as an answer to the destructive legacy of the personal automobile – to the exclusion of mass transit, bikes, and 15-minute cities:

https://thewaroncars.org/2023/10/24/113-dark-pr-with-grant-ennis/

As the tobacco and car examples show, "all of the above" is never really all of the above. Pursuing "light" cigarettes to reduce cancer is incompatible with simply banning tobacco; giving everyone a personal EV is incompatible with remaking our cities for transit, cycling and walking.

When it comes to the climate emergency, "all of the above" means trying "market-based" solutions to the exclusion of directly regulating emissions, despite the poor performance of these "solutions."

The big one here is carbon offsets, which allows companies to make money by promising not to emit carbon that they would otherwise emit. The idea here is that creating a new asset class will unleash the incredible creativity of markets by harnessing the greed of elite sociopaths to the project of decarbonization, rather of the prudence of democratically accountable lawmakers.

Carbon offsets have not worked: they have been plagued by absolutely foreseeable problems that have not lessened, despite repeated attempts to mitigate them.

For starters, carbon offsets are a classic market for lemons. The cheapest way to make a carbon offset is to promise not to emit carbon you were never going to emit anyway, as when fake charities like the Nature Conservancy make millions by promising not to log forests that can't be logged because they are wildlife preserves:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/18/greshams-carbon-law/#papal-indulgences

Then there's the problem of monitoring carbon offsetting activity. Like, what happens when the forest you promise not to log burns down? If you're a carbon trader, the answer is "nothing." That burned-down forest can still be sold as if it were sequestering carbon, rather than venting it to the atmosphere in an out-of-control blaze:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/26/aggregate-demand/#murder-offsets

When you bought a plane ticket and ticked the "offset the carbon on my flight" box and paid an extra $10, I bet you thought that you were contributing to a market that incentivized a reduction in discretionary, socially useless carbon-intensive activity. But without those carbon offsets, SUVs would have all but disappeared from American roads. Carbon offsets for Tesla cars generated billions in carbon offsets for Elon Musk, and allowed SUVs to escape regulations that would otherwise have seen them pulled from the market:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#Rat

What's more, Tesla figured out how to get double the offsets they were entitled to by pretending that they had a working battery-swap technology. This directly translated to even more SUVs on the road:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Misuse_of_government_subsidies

Harnessing the profit motive to the planet's survivability might sound like a good idea, but it assumes that corporations can self-regulate their way to a better climate future. They cannot. Think of how Canada's logging industry was allowed to clearcut old-growth forests and replace them with "pines in lines" – evenly spaced, highly flammable, commercially useful tree-farms that now turn into raging forest fires every year:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/16/murder-offsets/#pulped-and-papered

The idea of "market-based" climate solutions is that certain harmful conduct should be disincentivized through taxes, rather than banned. This makes carbon offsets into a kind of modern Papal indulgence, which let you continue to sin, for a price. As the outstanding short video Murder Offsets so ably demonstrates, this is an inadequate, unserious and immoral response to the urgency of the issue:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/14/for-sale-green-indulgences/#killer-analogy

Offsets and other market-based climate measures aren't "all of the above" – they exclude other measures that have better track-records and lower costs, because those measures cut against the interests of the business lobby. Writing for the Law and Political Economy Project, Yale Law's Douglas Kysar gives some pointed examples:

https://lpeproject.org/blog/climate-change-and-the-neoliberal-imagination/

For example: carbon offsets rely on a notion called "contrafactual carbon," this being the imaginary carbon that might be omitted by a company if it wasn't participating in offsets. The number of credits a company gets is determined by the difference between its contrafactual emissions and its actual emissions.

But the "contrafactual" here comes from a business-as-usual world, one where the only limit on carbon emissions comes from corporate executives' voluntary actions – and not from regulation, direct action, or other limits on corporate conduct.

Kysar asks us to imagine a contrafactual that depends on "carbon upsets," rather than offsets – one where the limits on carbon come from "lawsuits, referenda, protests, boycotts, civil disobedience":

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/29/carbon-upsets-offsets-cap-and-trade

If we're really committed to "all of the above" as baseline for calculating offsets, why not imagine a carbon world grounded in foreseeable, evidence-based reality, like the situation in Louisiana, where a planned petrochemical plant was canceled after a lawsuit over its 13.6m tons of annual carbon emissions?

https://earthjustice.org/press/2022/louisiana-court-vacates-air-permits-for-formosas-massive-petrochemical-complex-in-cancer-alley

Rather than a tradeable market in carbon offsets, we could harness the market to reward upsets. If your group wins a lawsuit that prevents 13.6m tons of carbon emissions every year, it will get 13.6 million credits for every year that plant would have run. That would certainly drive the commercial imaginations of many otherwise disinterested parties to find carbon-reduction measures. If we're going to revive dubious medieval practices like indulgences, why not champerty, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

That is, if every path to a survivable planet must run through Goldman-Sachs, why not turn their devious minds to figuring out ways to make billions in tradeable credits by suing the pants off oil companies?

There are any number of measures that rise to the flimsy standards of evidence in support of offsets. Like, we're giving away $85/ton in free public money for carbon capture technologies, despite the lack of any credible path to these making a serious dent in the climate situation:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/072523-ira-turbocharged-carbon-capture-tax-credit-but-challenges-persist-experts

If we're willing to fund untested longshots like carbon capture, why not measures that have far better track-records? For example, there's a pretty solid correlation between the presence of women in legislatures and on corporate boards and overall reductions in carbon. I'm the last person to suggest that the problems of capitalism can be replaced by replacing half of the old white men who run the world with women, PoCs and queers – but if we're willing to hand billions to ferkakte scheme like carbon capture, why not subsidize companies that pack their boards with women, or provide campaign subsidies to women running for office? It's quite a longshot (putting Liz Truss or Marjorie Taylor-Greene on your board or in your legislature is no way to save the planet), but it's got a better evidentiary basis than carbon capture.

There's also good evidence that correlates inequality with carbon emissions, though the causal relationship is unclear. Maybe inequality lets the wealthy control policy outcomes and tilt them towards permitting high-emission/high-profit activities. Maybe inequality reduces the social cohesion needed to make decarbonization work. Maybe inequality makes it harder for green tech to find customers. Maybe inequality leads to rich people chasing status-enhancing goods (think: private jet rides) that are extremely carbon-intensive.

Whatever the reason, there's a pretty good case that radical wealth redistribution would speed up decarbonization – any "all of the above" strategy should certainly consider this one.

Kysar's written a paper on this, entitled "Ways Not to Think About Climate Change":

https://political-theory.org/resources/Documents/Kysar.Ways%20Not%20to%20Think%20About%20Climate%20Change.pdf

It's been accepted for the upcoming American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy conference on climate change:

https://political-theory.org/13257256

It's quite a bracing read! The next time someone tells you we should hand Elon Musk billions to in exchange for making it possible to legally manufacture vast fleets of SUVs because we need to try "all of the above," send them a copy of this paper.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/31/carbon-upsets/#big-tradeoff

[vren-diagram]

What are the great positive effects of automated freight handling that longshoremen are denying you? What would become so much cheaper?

https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/transport/why-ports-matter-global-economy

Efficient port infrastructure has also been identified as a key contributor to overall port competitiveness and international trade costs. Unfortunately, ports and terminals, particularly for containers, are too often main sources of shipment delays, supply chain disruptions, additional costs, and reduced competitiveness. The result far too often is that instead of facilitating trade, the port increases the cost of imports and exports, reduces competitiveness, and inhibits economic growth and poverty reduction. The effect on a country or the countries served by the port can be severe. Inefficient ports can slow the circular system of container shipping, thereby reducing capacity, and reducing costs. Ships have to wait unnecessarily incurring additional fuel costs, additional emissions, and additional costs.

Improving container port performance lowers the cost of trade, contributes to food security, improves resilience, and reduces unnecessary emissions from vessels. The role of ports as the linchpin in the global economy is a major reason why the World Bank and S&P Global Markets are tracking port performance for nearly 350 global ports in the Container Ports Performance Index (CPPI).

When the cost of things goes up, that makes almost everyone worse off. I don't know how this could be clearer. You don't like it when you pay more money for things. Almost nobody likes paying more money to get the same things.

The US currently has some of the worst performing ports in the world. Because of resistance to modernization and make-work programs. Driven by dockworkers unions that use their monopolization of government-granted monopolies on infrastructure to....extract large amounts of money for themselves. This literally causes everything to be a little more expensive than it has to be. This to benefit dudes doing the equivalent of digging up holes just to fill them in again.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 6, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 7, 2023

The payroll processing firm ADP said today that private sector jobs jumped by 497,000 in June, far higher than the Dow Jones consensus estimate predicted. The big gains were in leisure and hospitality, which added 232,000 new hires; construction with 97,000; and trade, transportation and utilities with 90,000. Annual pay rose at a rate of 6.4%. Most of the jobs came from companies with fewer than 50 employees. 

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is a way to measure the stock market by aggregating certain stocks, dropped 372 points as the strong labor market made traders afraid that the Fed would raise interest rates again to cool the economy. Higher interest rates make borrowing more expensive, slowing investment. 

Today, as the Washington Post’s climate reporter Scott Dance warned that the sudden surge of broken heat records around the globe is raising alarm among scientists, Bloomberg’s Cailley LaPara reported that the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act for emerging technologies to address climate change have long-term as well as short-term benefits. 

Dance noted that temperatures in the North Atlantic are already close to their typical annual peak although we are early in the season, sea ice levels around Antarctica are terribly low, and Monday was the Earth’s hottest day in at least 125,000 years and Tuesday was hotter. LaPara noted that while much attention has been paid to the short-term solar, EV, and wind industries in the U.S., emerging technologies for industries that can’t be electrified—technologies like sustainable aviation fuel, clean hydrogen, and direct air capture, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air—offer huge potential to reduce emissions by 2030. 

This news was the backdrop today as President Biden was in South Carolina to talk about Bidenomics. After touting the huge investments of both public and private capital that are bringing new businesses and repaired infrastructure to that state, Biden noted that analysts have said that the new laws Democrats have passed will do more for Republican-dominated states than for Democratic ones. “Well, that’s okay with me,” Biden said, “because we’re all Americans. Because my view is: Wherever the need is most, that’s the place we should be helping. And that’s what we’re doing. Because the way I look at it, the progress we’re making is good for all Americans, all of America.”

On Air Force One on the way to the event, deputy press secretary Andrew Bates began his remarks to the press: “President Biden promised that he would be a president for all Americans, regardless of where they live and regardless of whether they voted for him or not. He also promised to rebuild the middle class. The fact that Bidenomics has now galvanized over $500 billion in job-creating private sector investment is the newest testament to how seriously he takes fulfilling those promises.”

Bates listed all the economic accomplishments of the administration and then added: “the most powerful endorsement of Bidenomics is this: Every signature economic law this President has signed, congressional Republicans who voted “no” and attacked it on Fox News then went home to their district and hailed its benefits.” He noted that “Senator Lindsey Graham called the Inflation Reduction Act ‘a nightmare for South Carolina,’” then, “[j]ust two months later, he called BMW’s electric vehicles announcement ‘one of the most consequential announcements in the history of the state of South Carolina.’” “Representative Joe Wilson blasted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law but later announced, ‘I welcome Scout Motors’ plans to invest $2 billion and create up to 4,000 jobs in South Carolina.’ Nancy Mace called Bidenomics legislation a…‘disaster,’ then welcomed a RAISE grant to Charleston.” 

“[W]hat could speak to the effectiveness of Bidenomics more than these conversions?” Bates asked.

While Biden is trying to sell Americans on an economic vision for the future, the Republican leadership is doubling down on dislike of President Biden and the Democrats. Early on the morning of July 2, Trump, who remains the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, shared a meme of President Biden that included a flag reading: “F*CK BIDEN AND F*CK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM!” The next morning, in all caps, he railed against what he called “massive prosecutorial conduct” and “the weaponization of law enforcement,” asking: “Do the people of this once great nation even have a choice but to protest the potential doom of the United States of America??? 2024!!!”

Prosecutors have told U.S. district judge Aileen Cannon that they want to begin Trump’s trial on 37 federal charges for keeping and hiding classified national security documents, and as his legal trouble heats up, Trump appears to be calling for violence against Democrats. On June 29 he posted what he claimed was the address of former president Barack Obama, inspiring a man who had been at the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to repost the address and to warn, “We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell,…Obama’s [sic].” Taylor Tarranto then headed there with firearms and ammunition, as well as a machete, in his van. Secret Service agents arrested him. 

Indeed, those crossing the law for the former president are not faring well. More than 1,000 people have been arrested for their participation in the events of January 6, and those higher up the ladder are starting to feel the heat as well. Trump lawyer Lin Wood, who pushed Trump’s 2020 election lies, was permitted to “retire” his law license on Tuesday rather than be disbarred. Trump lawyer John Eastman is facing disbarment in California for trying to overturn the 2020 election with his “fake elector” scheme, a ploy whose legitimacy the Supreme Court rejected last week. And today, Trump aide Walt Nauta pleaded not guilty to federal charges of withholding documents and conspiring to obstruct justice for allegedly helping Trump hide the classified documents he had at Mar-a-Lago. 

Trump Republicans—MAGA Republicans—are cementing their identity by fanning fears based on cultural issues, but it is becoming clear those are no longer as powerful as they used to be as the reality of Republican extremism becomes clear. 

Yesterday the man who raped and impregnated a then-9-year-old Ohio girl was sentenced to at least 25 years in prison. Last year, after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion, President Biden used her case to argue for the need for abortion access. Republican lawmakers, who had criminalized all abortions after 6 weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant, publicly doubted that the case was real (Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost told the Fox News Channel there was “not a damn scintilla of evidence” to support the story). Unable to receive an abortion in Ohio, the girl, who had since turned 10, had to travel to Indiana, where Dr. Caitlin Bernard performed the procedure.

Republican Indiana attorney general Todd Rokita complained—inaccurately—that Bernard had not reported child abuse and that she had violated privacy laws by talking to a reporter, although she did not identify the patient and her employer said she acted properly. Bernard was nonetheless reprimanded for her handling of privacy issues and fined by the Indiana licensing board. Her employer disagreed.

As Republican-dominated states have dramatically restricted abortion, they have fueled such a backlash that party members are either trying to avoid talking about it or are now replacing the phrase “national ban” with “national consensus” or “national standard,” although as feminist writer Jessica Valenti, who studies this language, notes, they still mean strict antiabortion measures. In the House, some newly-elected and swing-district Republicans have blocked abortion measures from coming to a vote out of concern they will lose their seats in 2024. 

But it is not at all clear the issue will go away. Yesterday, those committed to protecting abortion rights in Ohio turned in 70% more signatures than they needed to get a measure amending the constitution to protect that access on the ballot this November. In August, though, antiabortion forces will use a special election to try to change the threshold for constitutional amendments, requiring 60% of voters rather than a majority.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[acti-veg]

Promising that existing systems can be greened and that we can avoid uncomfortable discussions about issues like dietary change appeals to the strong status quo bias of the people holding the purse strings in national and global food and climate politics.

And, of course, the more the orthodox discourse about livestock emissions reduction embraces technological fixes—much like many climate mitigation models hold out hope of viable carbon capture technology—the more the meat industry can clamor for a seat at the climate table and the funding that comes with it.

Much as the U.S. government was convinced to shovel subsidies to the clean coal merchants, it now feeds grants to beef giants like Tyson Foods to support their allegedly lower-emissions beef through its Climate Smart Commodities program. Meanwhile, methane biodigesters have become less a climate-mitigation strategy and more a steady income stream—dubbed “brown gold”—for factory farms.

This, in turn, allows the industry to greenwash its products, promising consumers low-carbon, feel-good beef. And that, in turn, plays to consumers’ status quo bias and aversion to change: Beef and dairy might be fine after all!

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the Nation of Change:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled a monumental $4.3 billion funding initiative targeting climate pollution and environmental justice across 30 states. This announcement comes as part of the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. EPA Administrator Michael Regan emphasized the importance of community-driven solutions to tackle climate change, stating, “President Biden believes in the power of community-driven solutions to fight climate change, protect public health, and grow our economy.”

The Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, supported by the Inflation Reduction Act, aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while promoting environmental justice and economic growth. The selected projects are estimated to cut greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 971 million metric tons by 2050, which is comparable to the energy consumption of 5 million homes over 25 years.

Transportation

One of the major allocations includes $500 million dedicated to decarbonizing freight transportation at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. This funding will support the installation of electric charging equipment, the deployment of zero-emission freight vehicles, and the conversion of cargo handling equipment to reduce emissions.

Energy

Michigan is set to receive $129 million to accelerate its renewable energy projects. This initiative aims to streamline the siting, zoning, and permitting of renewable energy infrastructure, helping the state achieve its goal of 60% renewable energy by 2035.

Industry

Pennsylvania will benefit from $396 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities, including cement and asphalt plants. This effort is part of a broader initiative, RISE PA, to target industrial sector emissions and promote cleaner industrial practices.

Agriculture

Nebraska will receive $307 million for sustainable agriculture and energy efficiency projects. These funds will support climate-smart agriculture practices, reduce agricultural waste, improve energy efficiency in commercial and industrial facilities, and deploy solar panels and electrified irrigation wells.

Commercial and residential buildings

The northeastern states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine will collectively receive $450 million to promote the adoption of cold-climate heat pumps and water heaters. These technologies are crucial for improving energy efficiency in homes and commercial buildings, particularly in regions with harsh winters.

Waste management

The grants will also support various waste management projects aimed at reducing pollution and promoting recycling and waste reduction initiatives. These efforts are vital for minimizing the environmental impact of waste and improving public health.

[learnwithmearticles]

RNP on Climate Change

The idea of a Republican winning the United States 2024 presidential election is disastrous for many people. It would result in the loss of human rights, increased violence in many states, and even more deaths from worse public health conditions.

It would also be deadly because of its expected effects on the environment

Both during and in the wake of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential term, we saw numerous violations of policies, demagogy, and loosened regulations. This was even before three Supreme Court Justice seats were filled by him.

Now, the Republican party also has a firmer guideline for their governmental plans called Project 2025. It plainly explains their intentions and how they wish to achieve them. These include measures to end many policies and rules regarding environmental responsibility.

With this solidified roadmap, popular opinion is that these changes will happen much faster and more forcefully if Trump wins again.

The EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency concerned with environmental policies. When violations of things like the Clean Air Act occur, the EPA works out the relevant charges and settlements, providing penalties to companies that harm the environment.

The actions of the EPA go far in protecting both the environment and human health. They measure greenhouse gases, work with industries to reduce those emissions, monitor water quality, and much more.

Project 2025 discusses reducing the EPA’s control in these areas. This includes repealing the AIM Act of 2020, which works to reduce HFC use and facilitate the transition to alternatives that are not greenhouse gases and not harmful to human health.

Another targeted policy is the Inflation Reduction Act. Specifically, Project 2025 calls for undoing the grants from this Act given towards the development of zero-emission vehicles. The US Department of the Treasury has stated that the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest investment in reducing carbon emissions in US history.

Plans for the Climate

In addition to affecting the EPA, a Republican presidency would repeal many other important policies.

For example, in addition to HFCs, it would reduce regulations on PFAS, another group of pollutants that cause a wealth of health issues including liver damage, cancers, and birth defects. PFAS can take over 1000 years to begin to break down, and build up in water, food, and many other everyday amenities.

Energy-efficient lightbulbs, household appliances, and showerheads are ways that individuals have been able to make a difference environmentally. They have specific requirements they have to meet in order to be advertised appropriately. Those requirements are also a target of Project 2025.

Many authors of Project 2025 also benefit from the oil industry. In addition to ending clean energy programs and offices, they intend to increase drilling for oil and gas in the US.

Overall, environmentalism is an enemy to the Republican party. They claim that many environmental acts and policies have been misused for political motives by the Left. Regulatory barriers such as the Endangered Species Act would be lowered. Even the most basic policy that took years of fighting to enact, the US Global Change Research Program, responsible for the National Climate Assessment, would be eliminated.

We would see a complete overhaul of current conduct, with many EPA departments being downsized or dismantled. Oil and gas production would increase drastically, and toxic chemicals would become far more abundant than they already are.

These actions are dangerous. Toxic chemicals are banned for a reason. Emission regulations exist for a reason. This plan is constructed by people who don’t believe that climate change or historic damage to the ozone layer are real. They do not understand how the environment works or do not care because profit and power are more important to them than a healthy, long-lasting future for the world.

The Republican party wants to continue -and worsen- our reliance on fossil fuels, claiming that this will make the US more energy independent. It will actually make us far more dependent because of its finite amounts and the damage it does to the environment.

The long-term efforts of the Republican party to build a biased government have created an extremely tenuous situation. The election in 2024 will be catastrophic to the future of this country if Republicans win. If they don’t, it still doesn’t mean the fight is over. The Democratic party also has a lot of work to do and needs a lot of change. Most importantly, we need to maintain momentum for electing officials who will champion the rights of people. If Republicans lose this election, their plans will simply move forward to be tried at the next opportunity. This is a continual fight for a reliable future.

Additional Resources

1. Changes to the EPA

2. EPA

3. Project 2025 on the EPA

4. The Inflation Reduction Act

5. Additional Targets of Republicans

6. Assault on Environmentalism

7. Oil and Gas Drilling Plans

[thoughtportal]

Once You See the Truth About Cars, You Can’t Unsee It https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/opinion/car-ownership-inequality.html

By Andrew Ross and Julie Livingston

Mr. Ross and Ms. Livingston are professors at New York University, members of its Prison Education Program Research Lab and authors of the book “Cars and Jails: Freedom Dreams, Debt, and Carcerality.”

In American consumer lore, the automobile has always been a “freedom machine” and liberty lies on the open road. “Americans are a race of independent people” whose “ancestors came to this country for the sake of freedom and adventure,” the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce’s soon-to-be-president, Roy Chapin, declared in 1924. “The automobile satisfies these instincts.” During the Cold War, vehicles with baroque tail fins and oodles of surplus chrome rolled off the assembly line, with Native American names like Pontiac, Apache, Dakota, Cherokee, Thunderbird and Winnebago — the ultimate expressions of capitalist triumph and Manifest Destiny.

But for many low-income and minority Americans, automobiles have been turbo-boosted engines of inequality, immobilizing their owners with debt, increasing their exposure to hostile law enforcement, and in general accelerating the forces that drive apart haves and have-nots.

Though progressive in intent, the Biden administration’s signature legislative achievements on infrastructure and climate change will further entrench the nation’s staunch commitment to car production, ownership and use. The recent Inflation Reduction Act offers subsidies for many kinds of vehicles using alternative fuel, and should result in real reductions in emissions, but it includes essentially no direct incentives for public transit — by far the most effective means of decarbonizing transport. And without comprehensive policy efforts to eliminate discriminatory policing and predatory lending, merely shifting to electric from combustion will do nothing to reduce car owners’ ever-growing risk of falling into legal and financial jeopardy, especially those who are poor or Black.

By the 1940s, African American car owners had more reason than anyone to see their vehicles as freedom machines, as a means to escape, however temporarily, redlined urban ghettos in the North or segregated towns in the South. But their progress on roads outside of the metro core was regularly obstructed by the police, threatened by vigilante assaults, and stymied by owners of whites-only restaurants, lodgings and gas stations. Courts granted the police vast discretionary authority to stop and search for any one of hundreds of code violations — powers that they did not apply evenly. Today, officers make more than 50,000 traffic stops a day. Driving while Black has become a major route to incarceration — or much worse. When Daunte Wright was killed by a police officer in April 2021, he had been pulled over for an expired registration tag on his car’s license plate. He joined the long list of Black drivers whose violent and premature deaths at the hands of police were set in motion by a minor traffic infraction — Sandra Bland (failure to use a turn signal), Maurice Gordon (alleged speeding), Samuel DuBose (missing front license plate) and Philando Castile and Walter Scott (broken taillights) among them. Despite widespread criticism of the flimsy pretexts used to justify traffic stops, and the increasing availability of cellphone or police body cam videos, the most recent data shows that the number of deaths from police-driver interactions is almost as high as it has been over the past five years.

In the consumer arena, cars have become tightly sprung debt traps. The average monthly auto loan payment crossed $700 for the first time this year, which does not include insurance or maintenance costs. Subprime lending and longer loan terms of up to 84 months have resulted in a doubling of auto loan debt over the last decade and a notable surge in the number of drivers who are “upside down”— owing more money than their cars are worth. But, again, the pain is not evenly distributed. Auto financing companies often charge nonwhite consumers higher interest rates than white consumers, as do insurers.

Formerly incarcerated buyers whose credit scores are depressed from inactivity are especially red meat to dealers and predatory lenders. In our research, we spoke to many such buyers who found it easier, upon release from prison, to acquire expensive cars than to secure an affordable apartment. Some, like LeMarcus, a Black Brooklynite (whose name has been changed to protect his privacy under ethical research guidelines), discovered that loans were readily available for a luxury vehicle but not for the more practical car he wanted. Even with friends and family willing to help him with a down payment, after he spent roughly five years in prison, his credit score made it impossible to get a Honda or “a regular car.” Instead, relying on a friend to co-sign a loan, he was offered a high-interest loan on a pre-owned Mercedes E350. LeMarcus knew it was a bad deal, but the dealer told him the bank that would have financed a Honda “wanted a more solid foundation, good credit, income was showing more,” but that to finance the Mercedes, it “was actually willing to work with the people with lower credit and lower down payments.” We interviewed many other formerly incarcerated people who followed a similar path, only to see their cars repossessed.

Did you know you can share 10 gift articles a month, even with nonsubscribers?

Share this article.

LeMarcus was “car rich, cash poor,” a common and precarious condition that can have serious legal consequences for low-income drivers, as can something as simple as a speeding ticket. A $200 ticket is a meaningless deterrent to a hedge fund manager from Greenwich, Conn., who is pulled over on the way to the golf club, but it could be a devastating blow to those who mow the fairways at the same club. If they cannot pay promptly, they will face cascading penalties. If they cannot take a day off work to appear in court, they risk a bench warrant or loss of their license for debt delinquency. Judges in local courts routinely skirt the law of the land (in Supreme Court decisions like Bearden v. Georgia and Timbs v. Indiana) by disregarding the offender’s ability to pay traffic debt. At the request of collection agencies, they also issue arrest or contempt warrants for failure to appear in court on unpaid auto loan debts. With few other options to travel to work, millions of Americans make the choice to continue driving even without a license, which means their next traffic stop may land them in jail.

The pathway that leads from a simple traffic fine to financial insolvency or detention is increasingly crowded because of the spread of revenue policing intended to generate income from traffic tickets, court fees and asset forfeiture. Fiscally squeezed by austerity policies, officials extract the funds from those least able to pay. This is not only an awful way to fund governments; it is also a form of backdoor, regressive taxation that circumvents voters’ input.

Deadly traffic stops, racially biased predatory lending and revenue policing have all come under public scrutiny of late, but typically they are viewed as distinct realms of injustice, rather than as the interlocking systems that they are. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it: A traffic stop can result in fines or arrest; time behind bars can result in repossession or a low credit score; a low score results in more debt and less ability to pay fines, fees and surcharges. Championed as a kind of liberation, car ownership — all but mandatory in most parts of the country — has for many become a vehicle of capture and control.

Industry boosters promise us that technological advances like on-demand transport, self-driving electric vehicles and artificial intelligence-powered traffic cameras will smooth out the human errors that lead to discrimination, and that car-sharing will reduce the runaway costs of ownership. But no combination of apps and cloud-based solutions can ensure that the dealerships, local municipalities, courts and prison industries will be willing to give up the steady income they derive from shaking down motorists.

Aside from the profound need for accessible public transportation, what could help? Withdraw armed police officers from traffic duties, just as they have been from parking and tollbooth enforcement in many jurisdictions. Introduce income-graduated traffic fines. Regulate auto lending with strict interest caps and steep penalties for concealing fees and add-ons and for other well-known dealership scams. Crack down hard on the widespread use of revenue policing. And close the back door to debtors’ prisons by ending the use of arrest warrants in debt collection cases. Without determined public action along these lines, technological advances often end up reproducing deeply rooted prejudices. As Malcolm X wisely said, “Racism is like a Cadillac; they bring out a new model every year.”

Andrew Ross and Julie Livingston are professors at New York University, members of its Prison Education Program Research Lab and authors of the book “Cars and Jails: Freedom Dreams, Debt, and Carcerality.”

[batboyblog]

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #28

July 19-26 2024

The EPA announced the award of $4.3 billion in Climate Pollution Reduction Grants. The grants support community-driven solutions to fight climate change, and accelerate America’s clean energy transition. The grants will go to 25 projects across 30 states, and one tribal community. When combined the projects will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 971 million metric tons of CO2, roughly the output of 5 million American homes over 25 years. Major projects include $396 million for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection as it tries to curb greenhouse gas emissions from industrial production, and $500 million for transportation and freight decarbonization at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The Biden-Harris Administration announced a plan to phase out the federal government's use of single use plastics. The plan calls for the federal government to stop using single use plastics in food service operations, events, and packaging by 2027, and from all federal operations by 2035. The US government is the single largest employer in the country and the world’s largest purchaser of goods and services. Its move away from plastics will redefine the global market.

The White House hosted a summit on super pollutants with the goals of better measuring them and dramatically reducing them. Roughly half of today's climate change is caused by so called super pollutants, methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Public-private partnerships between NOAA and United Airlines, The State Department and NASA, and the non-profit Carbon Mapper Coalition will all help collect important data on these pollutants. While private firms announced with the White House plans that by early next year will reduce overall U.S. industrial emissions of nitrous oxide by over 50% from 2020 numbers. The summit also highlighted the EPA's new rule to reduce methane from oil and gas by 80%.

The EPA announced $325 million in grants for climate justice. The Community Change Grants Program, powered by President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act will ultimately bring $2 billion dollars to disadvantaged communities and help them combat climate change. Some of the projects funded in this first round of grant were: $20 million for Midwest Tribal Energy Resources Association, which will help weatherize and energy efficiency upgrade homes for 35 tribes in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, $14 million to install onsite wastewater treatment systems throughout 17 Black Belt counties in Alabama, and $14 million to urban forestry, expanding tree canopy in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

The Department of Interior approved 3 new solar projects on public land. The 3 projects, two in Nevada and one in Arizona, once finished could generate enough to power 2 million homes. This comes on top of DoI already having beaten its goal of 25 gigawatts of clean energy projects by the end of 2025, in April 2024. This is all part of President Biden’s goal of creating a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pledged $667 million to global Pandemic Fund. The fund set up in 2022 seeks to support Pandemic prevention, and readiness in low income nations who can't do it on their own. At the G20 meeting Yellen pushed other nations of the 20 largest economies to double their pledges to the $2 billion dollar fund. Yellen highlighted the importance of the fund by saying "President Biden and I believe that a fully-resourced Pandemic Fund will enable us to better prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics – protecting Americans and people around the world from the devastating human and economic costs of infectious disease threats,"

The Departments of the Interior and Commerce today announced a $240 million investment in tribal fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. This is in line with an Executive Order President Biden signed in 2023 during the White House Tribal Nations Summit to mpower Tribal sovereignty and self-determination. An initial $54 million for hatchery maintenance and modernization will be made available for 27 tribes in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The rest will be invested in longer term fishery projects in the coming years.

The IRS announced that thanks to funding from President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, it'll be able to digitize much of its operations. This means tax payers will be able to retrieve all their tax related information from one source, including Wage & Income, Account, Record of Account, and Return transcripts, using on-line Individual Online Account.

The IRS also announced that New Jersey will be joining the direct file program in 2025. The direct file program ran as a pilot in 12 states in 2024, allowing tax-payers in those states to file simple tax returns using a free online filing tool directly with the IRS. In 2024 140,000 Americans were able to file this way, they collectively saved $5.6 million in tax preparation fees, claiming $90 million in returns. The average American spends $270 and 13 hours filing their taxes. More than a million people in New Jersey alone will qualify for direct file next year. Oregon opted to join last month. Republicans in Congress lead by Congressmen Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Chuck Edwards of North Carolina have put forward legislation to do away with direct file.

Bonus: American law enforcement arrested co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada. El Mayo co-founded the cartel in the 1980s along side Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán. Since El Chapo's incarceration in the United States in 2019, El Mayo has been sole head of the Sinaloa Cartel. Authorities also arrested El Chapo's son, Joaquin Guzman Lopez. The Sinaloa Cartel has been a major player in the cross border drug trade, and has often used extreme violence to further their aims.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

A case involving thousands of retired Swiss women is being heard at a European Court in France, the culmination of a six-year legal battle in which they claim their government's insufficient action on climate change violated their human rights.

Here are some of their arguments:

- The case documents, or application in legal jargon, alleges four violations of the European Convention of Human Rights (Arts 2, 6, 8 and 13) including the right to life.

- They say the women's age and gender places them in one of the categories cited by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being at highest risk of temperature-related mortality. It also cites the IPCC saying heatwaves are becoming more frequent due to climate change.

- The case uses emerging evidence that older women are less able to regulate their body temperatures than others. It cites several reports including a 2014 World Health Organization document which says the majority of European studies show women are more at risk of dying from heatwaves.

- It says that around 30% of heat-related deaths in Switzerland can be attributed to climate change in recent years, citing a 2021 study published in Nature.

- Switzerland is aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and to achieve net zero by 2050. Lawyers for the applicants says its targets are "woefully inadequate".

- They take particular aim at Switzerland's strategy of purchasing emissions reductions abroad and accounting for them in national targets - a strategy that came under media scrutiny during the COP27 climate summit.

- The lawyers call for the Chamber to order rarely granted so-called "General Measures" which in this case mean concrete emission reduction targets within a fixed timeframe

[jcmarchi]

Q&A: Claire Walsh on how J-PAL’s King Climate Action Initiative tackles the twin climate and poverty crises

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/qa-claire-walsh-on-how-j-pals-king-climate-action-initiative-tackles-the-twin-climate-and-poverty-crises/

Q&A: Claire Walsh on how J-PAL’s King Climate Action Initiative tackles the twin climate and poverty crises

The King Climate Action Initiative (K-CAI) is the flagship climate change program of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), which innovates, tests, and scales solutions at the nexus of climate change and poverty alleviation, together with policy partners worldwide.

Claire Walsh is the associate director of policy at J-PAL Global at MIT. She is also the project director of K-CAI. Here, Walsh talks about the work of K-CAI since its launch in 2020, and describes the ways its projects are making a difference. This is part of an ongoing series exploring how the MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences is addressing the climate crisis.

Q: According to the King Climate Action Initiative (K-CAI), any attempt to address poverty effectively must also simultaneously address climate change. Why is that?

A: Climate change will disproportionately harm people in poverty, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, because they tend to live in places that are more exposed to climate risk. These are nations in sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia where low-income communities rely heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods, so extreme weather — heat, droughts, and flooding — can be devastating for people’s jobs and food security. In fact, the World Bank estimates that up to 130 million more people may be pushed into poverty by climate change by 2030.

This is unjust because these countries have historically emitted the least; their people didn’t cause the climate crisis. At the same time, they are trying to improve their economies and improve people’s welfare, so their energy demands are increasing, and they are emitting more. But they don’t have the same resources as wealthy nations for mitigation or adaptation, and many developing countries understandably don’t feel eager to put solving a problem they didn’t create at the top of their priority list. This makes finding paths forward to cutting emissions on a global scale politically challenging.

For these reasons, the problems of enhancing the well-being of people experiencing poverty, addressing inequality, and reducing pollution and greenhouse gases are inextricably linked.

Q: So how does K-CAI tackle this hybrid challenge?

A: Our initiative is pretty unique. We are a competitive, policy-based research and development fund that focuses on innovating, testing, and scaling solutions. We support researchers from MIT and other universities, and their collaborators, who are actually implementing programs, whether NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], government, or the private sector. We fund pilots of small-scale ideas in a real-world setting to determine if they hold promise, followed by larger randomized, controlled trials of promising solutions in climate change mitigation, adaptation, pollution reduction, and energy access. Our goal is to determine, through rigorous research, if these solutions are actually working — for example, in cutting emissions or protecting forests or helping vulnerable communities adapt to climate change. And finally, we offer path-to-scale grants which enable governments and NGOs to expand access to programs that have been tested and have strong evidence of impact.

We think this model is really powerful. Since we launched in 2020, we have built a portfolio of over 30 randomized evaluations and 13 scaling projects in more than 35 countries. And to date, these projects have informed the scale ups of evidence-based climate policies that have reached over 15 million people.

Q: It seems like K-CAI is advancing a kind of policy science, demanding proof of a program’s capacity to deliver results at each stage. 

A: This is one of the factors that drew me to J-PAL back in 2012. I majored in anthropology and studied abroad in Uganda. From those experiences I became very passionate about pursuing a career focused on poverty reduction. To me, it is unfair that in a world full of so much wealth and so much opportunity there exists so much extreme poverty. I wanted to dedicate my career to that, but I’m also a very detail-oriented nerd who really cares about whether a program that claims to be doing something for people is accomplishing what it claims.

It’s been really rewarding to see demand from governments and NGOs for evidence-informed policymaking grow over my 12 years at J-PAL. This policy science approach holds exciting promise to help transform public policy and climate policy in the coming decades.  

Q: Can you point to K-CAI-funded projects that meet this high bar and are now making a significant impact?

A: Several examples jump to mind. In the state of Gujarat, India, pollution regulators are trying to cut particulate matter air pollution, which is devastating to human health. The region is home to many major industries whose emissions negatively affect most of the state’s 70 million residents.

We partnered with state pollution regulators — kind of a regional EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] — to test an emissions trading scheme that is used widely in the U.S. and Europe but not in low- and middle-income countries. The government monitors pollution levels using technology installed at factories that sends data in real time, so the regulator knows exactly what their emissions look like. The regulator sets a cap on the overall level of pollution, allocates permits to pollute, and industries can trade emissions permits.

In 2019, researchers in the J-PAL network conducted the world’s first randomized, controlled trial of this emissions trading scheme and found that it cut pollution by 20 to 30 percent — a surprising reduction. It also reduced firms’ costs, on average, because the costs of compliance went down. The state government was eager to scale up the pilot, and in the past two years, two other cities, including Ahmedabad, the biggest city in the state, have adopted the concept.

We are also supporting a project in Niger, whose economy is hugely dependent on rain-fed agriculture but with climate change is experiencing rapid desertification. Researchers in the J-PAL network have been testing training farmers in a simple, inexpensive rainwater harvesting technique, where farmers dig a half-moon-shaped hole called a demi-lune right before the rainy season. This demi-lune feeds crops that are grown directly on top of it, and helps return land that resembled flat desert to arable production.

Researchers found that training farmers in this simple technology increased adoption from 4 percent to 94 percent and that demi-lunes increased agricultural output and revenue for farmers from the first year. K-CAI is funding a path-to-scale grant so local implementers can teach this technique to over 8,000 farmers and build a more cost-effective program model. If this takes hold, the team will work with local partners to scale the training to other relevant regions of the country and potentially other countries in the Sahel.

One final example that we are really proud of, because we first funded it as a pilot and now it’s in the path to scale phase: We supported a team of researchers working with partners in Bangladesh trying to reduce carbon emissions and other pollution from brick manufacturing, an industry that generates 17 percent of the country’s carbon emissions. The scale of manufacturing is so great that at some times of year, Dhaka (the capital of Bangladesh) looks like Mordor.

Workers form these bricks and stack hundreds of thousands of them, which they then fire by burning coal. A team of local researchers and collaborators from our J-PAL network found that you can reduce the amount of coal needed for the kilns by making some low-cost changes to the manufacturing process, including stacking the bricks in a way that increases airflow in the kiln and feeding the coal fires more frequently in smaller rather than larger batches.

In the randomized, controlled trial K-CAI supported, researchers found that this cut carbon and pollution emissions significantly, and now the government has invited the team to train 1,000 brick manufacturers in Dhaka in these techniques.

Q: These are all fascinating and powerful instances of implementing ideas that address a range of problems in different parts of the world. But can K-CAI go big enough and fast enough to take a real bite out of the twin poverty and climate crisis?

A: We’re not trying to find silver bullets. We are trying to build a large playbook of real solutions that work to solve specific problems in specific contexts. As you build those up in the hundreds, you have a deep bench of effective approaches to solve problems that can add up in a meaningful way. And because J-PAL works with governments and NGOs that have the capacity to take the research into action, since 2003, over 600 million people around the world have been reached by policies and programs that are informed by evidence that J-PAL-affiliated researchers produced. While global challenges seem daunting, J-PAL has shown that in 20 years we can achieve a great deal, and there is huge potential for future impact.

But unfortunately, globally, there is an underinvestment in policy innovation to combat climate change that may generate quicker, lower-cost returns at a large scale — especially in policies that determine which technologies get adopted or commercialized. For example, a lot of the huge fall in prices of renewable energy was enabled by early European government investments in solar and wind, and then continuing support for innovation in renewable energy.

That’s why I think social sciences have so much to offer in the fight against climate change and poverty; we are working where technology meets policy and where technology meets real people, which often determines their success or failure. The world should be investing in policy, economic, and social innovation just as much as it is investing in technological innovation.

Q: Do you need to be an optimist in your job?

A: I am half-optimist, half-pragmatist. I have no control over the climate change outcome for the world. And regardless of whether we can successfully avoid most of the potential damages of climate change, when I look back, I’m going to ask myself, “Did I fight or not?” The only choice I have is whether or not I fought, and I want to be a fighter.

[theculturedmarxist]

In 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic raged unchecked across America, President Donald Trump offered Democratic state governors an exceedingly cruel ultimatum: If you want help from the federal government, you “have to treat us well.” That exchange — lifesaving medical equipment for blue-state political support — reflects the inverse logic of the Biden administration as it seeks to revamp domestic manufacturing by directing billions of dollars into deep-red states, money that will be used to subsidize lower-paying jobs that will ultimately be able to replace union work in states that voted for Joe Biden.

In late June, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office granted a $9.2 billion loan — its largest ever — to Ford and its joint venture partner, the Korean firm BlueOval SK, to build battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky. The cash injection follows other projects, like a sprawling chip manufacturing plant and close to a dozen solar manufacturing sites across the South.

The loan, issued from the Department of Energy office that drew billions of dollars for investments in green energy under the Inflation Reduction Act, stems from Biden’s pledge to make half of all vehicles sold in 2030 zero emission. That undertaking means more plants that manufacture components of gas-powered vehicles are sure to close in coming years. Those jobs are overwhelmingly union and heavily based in swing states or blue states. While the administration’s investments so far may notch it a win in the war against offshoring and the White House’s perceived threat in the looming menace of Chinese competition, the White House’s handling of the transition to green energy — including where it invests federal dollars and whether it protects union workers’ jobs — will have implications not only for the climate crisis, but also for Democrats’ electoral prospects.

The success of the climate program will require continued federal commitment. Biden is placing a bet that clean energy investments could ultimately work the same way as the military-industrial complex. The military and its allied contractors have made sure to set up bases and/or manufacturing facilities in nearly every congressional district in the country, with extra attention paid to areas represented by key lawmakers. That has produced durable support for ever-expanding military budgets. Whether the same could be accomplished for the clean energy industry is an open question, but so far, Republicans from districts that have won federal awards have nevertheless voted to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which funds the tax breaks. By subsidizing the decline of union jobs, the Biden administration risks empowering lawmakers who will then move to end the subsidies altogether.

“What Biden is doing is politically insane, environmentally bankrupt, and it’s poor economics,” Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America and board member of Our Revolution, told The Intercept. “The White House and my old friend John Podesta” — who is overseeing the federal government’s spending of climate incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act — “should have labor-centered guidelines about where these investments are going, whether it’s in purple states like Michigan, whether it’s in Philadelphia, whether it’s in Ohio, there are acres and acres of devastated industrial landscape that need new investment as opposed to cornfields. The total lack of consideration for workers could certainly make the difference in 2024.”

During the 2020 presidential election, Biden won Michigan by just 150,000 votes. It was a hard-fought win for Democrats, who had lost the state in 2016 for the first time in two decades — and it was due in no small part to the United Auto Workers’, or UAW, political machine, which spent just under $10 million on nationwide political donations during the 2020 election cycle and many millions more on political outreach and media in Michigan. That money followed Biden’s promise to be the most pro-union president in recent memory, a claim he has continued to make while in office.

Ahead of 2024, Michigan Democrats find themselves in a strong position against their GOP opponents. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer cruised to reelection with a 10-point margin in November after seizing on the need to safeguard abortion access from GOP attacks, and, for the first time in 40 years, Democrats gained control of both of Michigan’s legislative chambers.

Despite the tailwinds, the Biden campaign will need to court every voter it can to clinch the election in what is still a purple state. Republicans, who will also be vying to gain a Senate seat in Michigan, have signaled that they believe the state is competitive given the election year turnout boost that a Trump candidacy will provide.

The UAW’s 130,000 members in Michigan — almost the same number of votes that made the difference for Biden three years ago — form an important voting bloc. In addition to their individual votes, UAW members are active donors and get-out-the-vote organizers. The union’s newly elected president, Shawn Fain, recently said the UAW would continue withholding the endorsement of its hundreds of thousands of members for Biden’s reelection until more progress was made on supporting members through the green energy transition.

Fain also lashed out at the president when news of the Energy Department loan to Ford broke, reminding him that union support is a privilege, not a right.

“We have been absolutely clear that the switch to electric engine jobs, battery production and other [electric vehicle] manufacturing cannot become a race to the bottom,” Fain said in a June 23 statement. “Not only is the federal government not using its power to turn the tide — they’re actively funding the race to the bottom with billions in public money.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who represents autoworkers in her Detroit-area district, was similarly critical of the loan. “The federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing the automakers’ expansion into states that are hostile to labor rights,” Tlaib told The Intercept. “The automakers must act fairly towards its union workers, especially after the UAW workers sacrificed so much during hard times for the industry. The rapid transition to electric vehicles that we need cannot come at the expense of the people making them.”

Union members have already taken losses in the run-up to the Biden administration’s investments in green energy. General Motors, another one of the big three automakers, recently opened a battery plant in Warren, Ohio, where starting wages for union members are about half of what wages were at an Ohio plant the manufacturer shuttered in 2019. Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized GM’s reduction in wages at the new plant, which opened last year. “The government is putting a lot of money into transitioning our economy to a non-fossil fuel economy,” Sanders said in April. “We want to see workers get a fair shake, not just the CEOs of the companies.”

The same week Ford secured a loan for its joint venture, the manufacturer announced it would lay off significant numbers of employees, following a 3,000-person cull in August of last year. While the plants planned for Tennessee and Kentucky will create 7,500 jobs, according to the Energy Department, workers will have to fight for higher wages and benefits while the company continues to downsize its combustion operations.

When it announced the joint venture loan to Ford, the Department of Energy’s loan office project said that it was committed to creating good-paying jobs with labor protections. “[BlueOval SK] is actively engaging with local stakeholders to develop a diverse local workforce and network of suppliers. To ensure the availability of skilled labor for construction, BOSK is constructing the projects under project labor agreements. In addition, [the Loan Program Office] works with all borrowers to create good-paying jobs with strong labor standards during construction, operations, and throughout the life of the loan and to adhere to a strong Community Benefits Plan.”

Yet neither the loan office nor the White House responded to The Intercept’s questions about the community benefits plan, including whether there are legally binding aspects in the loan terms that could provide tangible benefits for workers seeking to unionize in right-to-work states.

Ford, for its part, told The Intercept that it “has every reason to expect that BlueOval SK will pay competitive wages and benefits so they can attract and retain the workforce needed to build high tech batteries. Employees at BlueOval SK’s battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky will be able to choose whether they organize, a right that Ford fully respects and supports,” according to spokesperson Melissa Miller. Asked whether the loan contained any terms to that effect, Miller added, “We’re not able to provide additional details on loan terms.”

Fain, the UAW president, took a different view. “These companies are extremely profitable and will continue to make money hand over fist whether they’re selling combustion engines or [electric vehicles],” Fain said. “Yet the workers get a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. Why is Joe Biden’s administration facilitating this corporate greed with taxpayer money?”

[shashank21]

We’re at a pivotal time’: Federal funds boost community monitoring of oil and gas air pollution, but what will we do with the data?

For years, southwestern Pennsylvania communities have installed low-cost air pollution monitors to help quantify the impact of oil and gas development residents could plainly see, smell and hear.

Increasingly, they have the federal government as a partner willing to fund their vigilance.

In November, with money from COVID-19 relief funds and the climate and health law known as the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded nearly $2 million to southwestern Pennsylvania projects for community-led air pollution monitoring. Several of the projects are designed to monitor shale gas-related pollution.

Now, the EPA is preparing to unleash more funds in an effort to find and cut down on releases of the powerful greenhouse gas methane and other air pollution from the web of equipment used to get oil and gas from underground to end users.

The Inflation Reduction Act granted the EPA $1.5 billion to measure and reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations, including $850 million to cut pollution across the sector and $700 million to curb leaks from small, low-producing wells.

The agency has broad discretion for how to use the funds over the next six years, including providing grants for methane monitoring, deploying equipment, supporting new leak-detection technology, plugging wells and mitigating health effects from oil and gas-related air pollution in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

Separately, the EPA is proposing to enlist the help of groups outside of industry and regulators — such as environmental nonprofits and universities — to use sophisticated methane detection tools mounted on drones, planes and satellites to find the biggest leaks across the natural gas supply chain, or so-called “super emitters.”

Studies show that a small number of super-emitting sources “are responsible for as much as half of the methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations, along with significant amounts of smog-forming [volatile organic compounds] and toxic air pollutants that are of concern in many communities,” the EPA said when it proposed the rule in November.

Final guidelines for both programs are expected to be published this year.

Southwestern Pennsylvania community and environmental groups that stand to benefit from the funding say it marks a turning point in the government’s acknowledgement of the power of community-led monitoring.

“We’re at a pivotal time right now,” said Shannon Smith, executive director of the Johnstown-based FracTracker Alliance. She envisions future academic papers will pinpoint this as a moment when a flood of federal investment changed the entire environmental nonprofit sector.

But the groups caution that the funding’s value will be diminished if it increases awareness without reducing pollution. The “million-dollar question,” Smith said, is whether all the data will be used to influence change.

“How tragic would that be if all this investment and all this effort goes into it and the data continues to just fall on deaf ears?”

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Canary Media:

Colorado just got a big boost to help slash planet-warming emissions from commercial buildings.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the state was selected to receive a $20 million grant to help implement its building performance standards — ambitious rules that limit the amount of carbon pollution big buildings can emit. Colorado adopted the policy, which applies to edifices 50,000 square feet or greater, last year.

The funding will be used to help buildings in marginalized communities, whose owners may be less able to afford deep carbon-cutting measures like insulation and heat pumps, meet the state’s building decarbonization targets.

“We’re really excited about this DOE award to ensure the success of Colorado’s building performance standard,” Dominique Gómez, deputy director of the Colorado Energy Office, told Canary Media.

The Colorado award was the largest among the 19 grants to state and local governments announced last week as part of a broader $1 billion Inflation Reduction Act effort to clean up the U.S. building stock. The vast majority of the new round of funding went to helping cities and states design or implement performance standards for buildings, a means of tackling emissions that’s taking root around the country. From New York City’s pioneering Local Law 97 to Seattle’s Building Emissions Performance Standards, these policies set emissions or energy-use intensity caps per square foot in large structures that become more stringent over time.

Building owners have flexibility in figuring out how to meet these standards, whether that’s switching to LED light bulbs, weatherizing, electrifying heating or all of the above. If they fall short, owners face hefty penalties that are designed to exceed retrofit costs, according to Paulina Torres, research manager at global real-estate services firm JLL.

Performance standards are sticks to the policy carrots incentivizing energy efficiency upgrades that, on their own, largely haven’t worked to reduce building sector emissions, said Marshall Duer-Balkind, policy director at the building decarbonization nonprofit Institute for Market Transformation (IMT).

Unlike building energy codes, which generally target new construction, performance standards tackle emissions from existing buildings — a massive source of climate pollution. When you include the electricity they consume, buildings are the largest source of carbon emissions in the country — more than transportation, agriculture, or industry (excluding its buildings), according to the DOE.